Aurelesk
King
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 602
Introduction
When playing, I quickly saw that the Archer were crazy good. So I thought: Were they always that good in V? I should compare the units between the two iterations. So I set up some sheet, and put myself to work.
In VI, the combat system changed a little. Not much, but did introduced new mechanics such as:
New Combat Strength formula
It is basically some sort of a logarithmic scale, instead of relative one. Units from a new era tend to have +10 CS instead of +50%. Therefore, if there are 8 eras, CS can go from 20, 30, 40… 80 and 90; instead of 8, 12, 18… 90 and 135. The granularity is better in early age, but worse in later age. The bonuses are no longer additive but multiplicative: having two +100% (×2) would end up having ×3 in V, while having two +17 (roughly equal to ×2) would end up having ×4 in VI. Therefore, stacking bonus in VI is way more potent.
In order to compare the effectiveness of Civ-V's units, I first took the Warrior as reference of a 20 CS, then converted the Strength of units into the new formula. And... everything was off by 5 CS. So I changed with 25 CS as a base, and it worked better. It seems that the Civilization VI's Warrior is weaker but cheaper. Probably changed for balance reason.
Apparently they also raised the Production cost of all units by 50%, then introduced the policies which increased by 50% the production. Which makes sense in retrospective, but only figured out when I was doing my sheets.
Melee class units
In Civilization VI, the Melee class enjoy +5 CS against Anticavalry units.
I didn't make the comparison between both Swordsmen, and between Longswordsman & Man-At-Arms as they are half an era short. It seems that the power doesn't increase by +10CC per era, but by +5CS per half era. The distinction is important.
The Warrior in VI is weaker but doesn't cost 50% more. In believe that is why I think the Archer was way better: the Warrior is not as good. I have a hypothesis that they intended to have the Warrior as a 25 CS at 60/65 Production cost, but probably made it a 20 CS at 40 Production for balance reason. The Eagle Warrior is probably based on the old Warrior, as it is 28 CS for 65 Production. Usually, unique units has +3 bonus CS to their counterpart, which align if the Warrior was 25 CS.
Perhaps everything I said is wrong, and the Eagle Warrior is made that way in order to give more longevity to the unit and not be obsolete before it could have been usable?
The Swordsman in VI once was 40 CS. My hypothesis is that they ported the data from Civilization V and either forgot it was an early classical unit and not a late classical unit like in Civilization V, or Iron Working once used to be a late classical tech but moved to early classical but forgot to change the Combat Strength accordingly.
From Musketman, the units are stronger than their counterpart, probably because they require a Strategic resources. The only exception is... the Mechanized Infantry. At first, we could think it is 5CS short... except it is 10CS. There is a reason: the games handle late-game units differently. They have the same idea: make them "ultimate", but took different paths:
Ranged class units
In Civilization VI, the Ranged class suffers from -17 CS against Cities and Naval units.
The comparison is hard, as the Ranged units has 1 Range in V starting with the Gatling Gun, making them awful. Field Cannon is what Gatling Gun would have been if it had 2 Range in Civilization V. But I proved my point: if the Warrior is 5 CS weaker, the Archer is in comparison 3 CS stronger, making a gap of 8 CS total. So I was right: the Archer is stronger! But not stronger as I thought.
Cavalry class units
The Cavalry has been split into Heavy and Light Cavalry in VI:
The comparison between the Horseman are interesting. I thought I would find the Horseman in VI is too powerful, while in reality it is too cheap and should be around 90 - 110 Production cost. Meanwhile, the Knight is crazy expensive and should be around 180 Production... and it was that cost! Further cementing the idea that they took Civilization V's units and put them in VI with a converted Combat Strength formula and +50% cost.
The comparison works roughly quite well... until the Tank. It is only 37% more costly (instead of the expected 50%), yet have 10 more Combat Strength than expected. It is a real imbalance.
I put the Giant Death Robot as well, as it is in the upgrade path in V, even if the comparison doesn't make sense.
Anticavalry class (or the "what is that upgrade path?!")
I don't know if I want to do that comparison. In V, the units goes land, then mounted, then anti-tank, then helicopter. It seems Firaxis really want Helicopter and Lancer, but don't know how to introduce them in a unit path upgrade.
In VI, the unit path has +10 CS against Anticavalry (roughly +50%) .
The comparison is quite weird. The unit line start underwhelming with the Spearman and Pikeman in V, and somehow get really good as the AT-Crew, while in V it goes zigzag with being a Mounted units, no longer applying its bonus against Mounted but only Armored, then finishing as Helicopter than cannot conquer city.
Between the two Spearmen, there is a whole 8 CS gap... in favor of Civilization V. It truly demonstrates either how good the unit was in V or... how bad it was in VI. In reality, it is both: the unit was quite good in V and really bad in VI. I believe they made the Spearman in VI weaker because the Barbarian Outpost are guarded by them, and the weakened Warrior couldn't deal with it. I would even argue the once +10 CS against Anticavalry was created because of this (now +5 CS). Yet, it isn't +50% more costly but less.
Basically, it is tied on how cheaper but weaker the units are in the Ancient era (except for the Archer which is stronger). Would it be okay to basically increase by 5 CS of all Ancient units, but being costlier? Yet if the Spearman is a 30 CS unit for 90 Production, it wouldn't be fair the early classical units.
The Pikeman is at an odd place. If we compare without context, you might say "wow, Pikeman in VI is underwhelming: the unit is way too expensive. No wonder it is bad". Yet... Pikeman in V are quite good. They are very cheap for its power, and it would still be a good value at 100 - 110 Production. So the point of comparison was biased.
When we compare with Man-at-Arms (a very good unit), the units is as strong (45 CS) but with no Strategic resources. It just cost 20 Production more. Yet, if it costed as much (160 Production), then the Man-at-Arms would have nothing more than a different Promotion table that doesn't enjoy +10CS against Cavalry for an additional 20 Iron cost.
By logic, the Pikeman should be at 40 CS (-5) but costing only 130 Production (-50). In practice, the unit wouldn't be a counter to Cavalry units such as Knight which has 50 CS (well, that Pikeman would be cheaper and easy to swarm with). That is why the Pikeman is at an odd place. Maybe, I should talk about Promotion table inequalities.
Meanwhile, the AT Crew is quite cheap for its power.
Siege class units
The Siege class units in Civilization VI use "Bombard" damage, in order to hit effectively Walls.
In Civilization V, Siege units has the following abilities:
Siege units are interesting. They follow the +50% Production cost. Yet, they have no policy increasing Siege units production. Why? Please, Firaxis, add policy cards that increase by 50% the production cost of Siege, Support and Recon units. Or maybe makes them cheaper? The Trebuchet might a little too much costly, but not by much.
The units follows the curve really well. As Siege units has +27 CS against cities in VI, while they have -17 CS against land unit in V, I have to compare with a 5 bonus for Ranged Strength for VI. If V has 20 (47 vs Cities), and VI has 25 (42 vs Cities), therefore the average would be the same, with +5/-5 in VI.
But I guess they find out the cities are way sturdier in VI, because Artillery and Rocket Artillery has +10 CS bonus, which tie V to deal as much damage against cities, but it would have +10 CS against everything else. Probably to deal with Urban Walls.
Conclusion
It astonished me to find out that both games are very close in the power they gave to the units. Yet, the few oddities can be actual non solved problematic in VI.
They made the units to cost 50% more, but introduced policies that increase Production by 50%. Yet, Recon and Siege units don't have those policy cards while being as costly as the other units.
Early units don't follow the +50% cost rule. The Warrior has the same cost, but is made weaker by 5 CS. All Ancient units are kind of in this situation... except the Archer. Not only it follows the higher production rule exactly, but it is also a little stronger that its counterpart. Therefore the Archer is dominating the Ancient era (yeah! I proved that Archer are more potent in VI than V!).
Civilization V also had units that Civilization VI doesn't have. For example: the Composite Bowman. Maybe one the reasons the Archer is that strong is because a "normal power" Archer couldn't compete with the Horseman and Swordsman units. They also have the Bazooka, which give the Ranged units a representative in the Information era, something we don't have in VI. Maybe the game should have those units to fill some gaps.
Some units are only half an era apart, like the Longswordsman vs Musketman, the Great War Infantry vs Infantry, or the Landship vs Tank. I can understand why for Longswordsman vs Musketman, as it is the change to Gunpowder units which don't need Strategic Resources. But for the other two, I think it is nice flavor-wise (distinction between WWI and WWII), but doesn't bring as much gameplay-wise.
Back the Ancient era problem: I believe most of units attacking in Melee in the Ancient era are made bad because the Barbarian starts with them and use them. If the Spearman was made stronger, our starting Warrior couldn't beat them. I believe that what was once the +10 CS vs Anticavalry on the Melee Class was just a tool to give the players a way to deal with Barbarian Outpost which end up having the whole Anticavalry class being bad. It was later reduced to +5 CS.
As the Slinger is the rubbish Ranged unit that can upgrade to the Archer in the Ancient era, should the Warrior be or have a rubbish Melee unit that can upgrade from/into in the Ancient era as well? Same thing for the Spearman?
The Horseman is another unit that doesn't follow the formula, as it costs almost the same yet being even more powerful. It shows in the game as well. The game designers even had to create Barbarian Horseman to circumvent the problem! Yet, in V, the Horseman has roughly the same power.
What should be done? Nothing? Increase its cost to ~120? Reduce its power to ~30? Or something in between like ~33 CS and ~100 Production?
Lastly, the late era units are diverging quite far from Civilization V's philosophy. In both games, the units have a better Power over Price ratio than the previous eras. The divergence comes from how they did it: in V the Price is almost the same and the Power is somewhat increased. In VI, the ratio is kept the same but both Power and Price are increased, the Power more than the Price.
Yet, even by taking the new philosophy in account, late-game units are quite a mess. The most notable is the Tank, which is as powerful as the Mechanized Infantry, both consuming Oil, yet the Tank is available earlier and is cheaper. Perhaps they took inspiration from Civilization V's Tank (unlocked later), instead of the Landship?
Arguably, some units distance themselves from that ratio: the AT-Crew is perhaps too cheap for its power, while the Modern Armor is perhaps too strong for its price.
And you?
Do you think it is relevant to look back in Civilization V to know where Civilization VI is going? Is there something that V have that you want in VI, or instead wouldn't want at all?
It took too much time to write this, and I didn't even talk about Naval and Air units, and don't talk about Promotion table which is also worth a discussion!
When playing, I quickly saw that the Archer were crazy good. So I thought: Were they always that good in V? I should compare the units between the two iterations. So I set up some sheet, and put myself to work.
In VI, the combat system changed a little. Not much, but did introduced new mechanics such as:
New Combat Strength formula
It is basically some sort of a logarithmic scale, instead of relative one. Units from a new era tend to have +10 CS instead of +50%. Therefore, if there are 8 eras, CS can go from 20, 30, 40… 80 and 90; instead of 8, 12, 18… 90 and 135. The granularity is better in early age, but worse in later age. The bonuses are no longer additive but multiplicative: having two +100% (×2) would end up having ×3 in V, while having two +17 (roughly equal to ×2) would end up having ×4 in VI. Therefore, stacking bonus in VI is way more potent.
In order to compare the effectiveness of Civ-V's units, I first took the Warrior as reference of a 20 CS, then converted the Strength of units into the new formula. And... everything was off by 5 CS. So I changed with 25 CS as a base, and it worked better. It seems that the Civilization VI's Warrior is weaker but cheaper. Probably changed for balance reason.
Apparently they also raised the Production cost of all units by 50%, then introduced the policies which increased by 50% the production. Which makes sense in retrospective, but only figured out when I was doing my sheets.
Melee class units
In Civilization VI, the Melee class enjoy +5 CS against Anticavalry units.
| Units | Era | Production | Strategic | Melee | Move |
| Warrior (V) Melee | Start | 40 | - | 25 | 2 |
| Warrior (VI) Melee | Start | 40 (=) | - | 20 (-5) | 2 |
| Swordsman (VI) Melee | Early classical Iron Working | 90 | Iron | 35 | 2 |
| Swordsman (V) Melee | Late classical Iron Working | 75 | Iron | 39 | 2 |
| Man-At-Arms (VI) Melee | Early medieval Apprenticeship | 160 | Iron | 45 | 2 |
| Longswordsman (V) Melee | Late medieval Steel | 120 | Iron | 49 | 2 |
| Musketman (V) Gunpowder | Early renaissance Gunpowder | 150 | - | 52 | 2 |
| Musketman (VI) Melee | Early renaissance Gunpowder | 240 (+60%) | Niter (!) | 55 (+3) | 2 |
| Rifleman (V) Gunpowder | Early industrial Rifling | 225 | - | 61 | 2 |
| Line Infantry (VI) Melee | Early industrial Military Science | 360 (+60%) | Niter (!) | 65 (+4) | 2 |
| Great War Infantry (V) Gunpowder | Early modern Replaceable Parts | 320 | - | 71 | 2 |
| Infantry (VI) Melee | Early modern Replaceable Parts | 430 (+34%) | Oil (!) | 75 (+4) | 2 |
| Infantry (V) Gunpowder | Late modern Plastics | 375 | - | 79 | 2 |
| Mechanized Infantry (V) Gunpowder | Early information Mobile Tactics | 375 | - | 85 | 3 |
| Mechanized Infantry (VI) Melee | Early information Satellites | 650 (+73%) | Oil (!) | 85 (=) | 3 |
I didn't make the comparison between both Swordsmen, and between Longswordsman & Man-At-Arms as they are half an era short. It seems that the power doesn't increase by +10CC per era, but by +5CS per half era. The distinction is important.
The Warrior in VI is weaker but doesn't cost 50% more. In believe that is why I think the Archer was way better: the Warrior is not as good. I have a hypothesis that they intended to have the Warrior as a 25 CS at 60/65 Production cost, but probably made it a 20 CS at 40 Production for balance reason. The Eagle Warrior is probably based on the old Warrior, as it is 28 CS for 65 Production. Usually, unique units has +3 bonus CS to their counterpart, which align if the Warrior was 25 CS.
Perhaps everything I said is wrong, and the Eagle Warrior is made that way in order to give more longevity to the unit and not be obsolete before it could have been usable?
The Swordsman in VI once was 40 CS. My hypothesis is that they ported the data from Civilization V and either forgot it was an early classical unit and not a late classical unit like in Civilization V, or Iron Working once used to be a late classical tech but moved to early classical but forgot to change the Combat Strength accordingly.
From Musketman, the units are stronger than their counterpart, probably because they require a Strategic resources. The only exception is... the Mechanized Infantry. At first, we could think it is 5CS short... except it is 10CS. There is a reason: the games handle late-game units differently. They have the same idea: make them "ultimate", but took different paths:
- In V, late-game units don't gain as much power between era. In exchange, their production cost doesn't increase. For the same production cost, you will have as much units with a little more Strength. In order to win, you swarm your enemy.
- In VI, the late-game units gain full power between era, but the production will increase not as fast. For the same production cost, you will have a little less units but they are way more powerful. In order to win, you have to update your enemy.
Ranged class units
In Civilization VI, the Ranged class suffers from -17 CS against Cities and Naval units.
| Units | Era | Production | Melee | Ranged | Range | Move |
| Slinger (VI) Ranged | Start | 35 | 5 | 15 | 1 | 2 |
| Archer (V) Archery | Ancient Archery | 40 | 13 | 22 | 2 | 2 |
| Archer (VI) Ranged | Ancient Archery | 60 (+50%) | 15 (+2) | 25 (+3) | 2 | 2 |
| Composite Bowman (V) Archery | Early classical Construction | 75 | 22 | 33 | 2 | 2 |
| Crossbowman (VI) Ranged | Early medieval Machinery | 160 | 30 | 40 | 2 | 2 |
| Crossbowman (V) Archery | Late medieval Machinery | 120 | 38 | 45 | 2 | 2 |
| Gatling Gun (V) Archery | Early industrial Industrialization | 225 | 58 | 58 | 1 | 2 |
| Field Cannon (VI) Ranged | Early industrial Ballistics | 330 (+47%) | 50 (-8) | 60 (+2) | 2 (+1) | 2 |
| Machine Gun (V) Archery | Late modern Ballistics | 350 | 75 | 75 | 1 | 2 |
| Machine Gun (VI) Ranged | Early atomic Advanced ballistics | 540 | 70 | 85 | 2 | 2 |
| Bazooka (V) Archery | Late information Nuclear Fusion | 375 | 84 | 84 | 1 | 2 |
The comparison is hard, as the Ranged units has 1 Range in V starting with the Gatling Gun, making them awful. Field Cannon is what Gatling Gun would have been if it had 2 Range in Civilization V. But I proved my point: if the Warrior is 5 CS weaker, the Archer is in comparison 3 CS stronger, making a gap of 8 CS total. So I was right: the Archer is stronger! But not stronger as I thought.
Cavalry class units
The Cavalry has been split into Heavy and Light Cavalry in VI:
- The Heavy Cavalry inherited the Chariot Archer (as Heavy Chariot), the Knight, the Tank and the Modern Armor.
- The Light Cavalry inherited the Horseman, the Cavalry and the Helicopter Gunship from the Anticalvary (as Helicopter).
- The Landship has no equivalent (in truth: the Tank in VI is the Landship in V, and the Tank in V has no equivalent).
- The Giant Death Robot is a standalone unit in VI.
- Can move after attacking
- Replaced by "Ignore Zone of Control" in VI.
- No Defensive Terrain bonuses (cannot enjoy +2 CS from Woods or Hills, or Fortifications).
- It has no equivalence in Civilization VI. Perhaps "Ignore Zone of Control" wasn't as potent to compensate the "Can move after attacking"?
- Cavalry have a -33% penalty attacking cities (roughly: -10CS). It doesn't apply to Armored unit (like Tank).
- Replaced by their inability of using Battering Ram and Siege Tower.
| Units | Era | Production | Strategic | CS | Move | Other Abilities |
| Chariot Archer (V) Archery | Ancient The Wheel | 56 | Horses | 18 / 31 (2r) | 4 | Rough Terrain Penalty Cannot move after attack |
| Heavy Chariot (VI) Heavy Cavalry | Ancient Wheel | 65 (+16%) | - | 28 (-3) | 2 | +1 Move on flat terrain |
| Horseman (V) Mounted | Early classical Horseback Riding | 75 | Horses | 35 | 4 | |
| Horseman (VI) Light Cavalry | Early classical Horseback Riding | 80 (+7%) | Horses | 36 (+1) | 4 | |
| Knight (V) Mounted | Late medieval Chivalry | 120 | Horses | 48 | 4 | |
| Knight (VI) Heavy Cavalry | Late medieval Stirrups | 220 (+83%) | Iron (!) | 50 (+2) | 4 | |
| Courser (VI) Light Cavalry | Late medieval Castles | 200 (+67%) | Horses | 46 (-2) | 5 (+1) | |
| Cavalry (V) Mounted | Early industrial Military Science | 225 | Horses | 61 | 4 | |
| Cavalry (VI) Light Cavalry | Early industrial Military Science | 330 (+46%) | Horses | 62 (+1) | 5 (+1) | |
| Cuirasser (VI) Heavy Cavalry | Early industrial Ballistics | 330 (+46%) | Iron (!) | 64 (+3) | 4 | |
| Landship (V) Armored | Late modern Combustion | 350 | Oil | 75 | 4 | |
| Tank (VI) Heavy Cavalry | Late modern Combustion | 480 (+37%) | Oil | 85 (+10) | 4 | +1 Move on flat terrain |
| Tank (V) Armored | Early atomic Combined Arms | 375 | Oil | 79 | 5 | |
| Helicopter Gunship (V) Helicopter | Late atomic Computers | 425 | Aluminium | 75 | 6 | All tiles cost 1 Move Bonus vs Tank (+100% : +17 CS) Cannot conquer cities |
| Helicopter (VI) Light Cavalry | Late atomic Synthetic Materials | 600 (+40%) | Aluminium | 86 (+11) | 4 (-2) | All tiles cost 1 Move |
| Modern Armor (V) Armored | Early information Laser | 425 | Aluminium | 88 | 5 | |
| Modern Armor (VI) Heavy Cavalry | Early information Composites | 680 (+60%) | Oil (!) | 95 (+7) | 4 | +1 Move on flat terrain |
| Giant Death Robot (V) Armored | Late information Nuclear Fusion | 425 | Uranium | 98 | 5 | |
| Giant Death Robot (VI) GDR | Late information Robotics | 1500 (+253%) | Uranium (×3) | 130 / 120 (3r) (+32) | 5 | Can attack when embarked -17 CS against cities and naval Capabilities updated with certain techs |
The comparison between the Horseman are interesting. I thought I would find the Horseman in VI is too powerful, while in reality it is too cheap and should be around 90 - 110 Production cost. Meanwhile, the Knight is crazy expensive and should be around 180 Production... and it was that cost! Further cementing the idea that they took Civilization V's units and put them in VI with a converted Combat Strength formula and +50% cost.
The comparison works roughly quite well... until the Tank. It is only 37% more costly (instead of the expected 50%), yet have 10 more Combat Strength than expected. It is a real imbalance.
I put the Giant Death Robot as well, as it is in the upgrade path in V, even if the comparison doesn't make sense.
Anticavalry class (or the "what is that upgrade path?!")
I don't know if I want to do that comparison. In V, the units goes land, then mounted, then anti-tank, then helicopter. It seems Firaxis really want Helicopter and Lancer, but don't know how to introduce them in a unit path upgrade.
In VI, the unit path has +10 CS against Anticavalry (roughly +50%) .
| Units | Era | Production | Strategic | Melee | Move | Other abilities |
| Spearman (V) Melee | Ancient Bronze Working | 56 | - | 33 | 2 | Bonus vs Mounted (+50% : +10 CS) |
| Spearman (VI) Anticavalry | Ancient Bronze Working | 65 (+16%) | - | 25 (-8) | 2 | |
| Pikeman (V) Melee | Early medieval Civil Service | 90 | - | 42 | 2 | Bonus vs Mounted (+50% : +10 CS) |
| Pikeman (VI) Anticavalry | Early medieval Military Tactics | 180 (+100%) | - | 45 (+3) | 2 | |
| Lancer (V) Mounted | Late renaissance Metallurgy | 185 | Horses | 53 | 4 | Has Mounted abilities +33% VS Mounted units. (+7 CS) |
| Pike and Shot (VI) Anticavalry | Late renaissance Metal Casting | 250 (+35%) | - | 55 (+2) | 2 | |
| AT Crew (VI) Anticavary | Late modern Chemistry | 400 | - | 75 | 2 | |
| Anti-Tank Gun (V) Gunpowder | Early atomic Combined Arms | 300 | - | 71 | 2 | Bonus vs Tanks (+100% : +17 CS) |
| Helicopter Gunship (V) Helicopter | Late atomic Computers | 425 | Aluminium | 75 | 6 | All tiles cost 1 Move Bonus vs Tank (+100% : +17 CS) No defensive terrain bonuses Cannot conquer cities |
| Modern AT (VI) Anticavalry | Early information Composites | 580 | - | 85 | 2 |
The comparison is quite weird. The unit line start underwhelming with the Spearman and Pikeman in V, and somehow get really good as the AT-Crew, while in V it goes zigzag with being a Mounted units, no longer applying its bonus against Mounted but only Armored, then finishing as Helicopter than cannot conquer city.
Between the two Spearmen, there is a whole 8 CS gap... in favor of Civilization V. It truly demonstrates either how good the unit was in V or... how bad it was in VI. In reality, it is both: the unit was quite good in V and really bad in VI. I believe they made the Spearman in VI weaker because the Barbarian Outpost are guarded by them, and the weakened Warrior couldn't deal with it. I would even argue the once +10 CS against Anticavalry was created because of this (now +5 CS). Yet, it isn't +50% more costly but less.
Basically, it is tied on how cheaper but weaker the units are in the Ancient era (except for the Archer which is stronger). Would it be okay to basically increase by 5 CS of all Ancient units, but being costlier? Yet if the Spearman is a 30 CS unit for 90 Production, it wouldn't be fair the early classical units.
The Pikeman is at an odd place. If we compare without context, you might say "wow, Pikeman in VI is underwhelming: the unit is way too expensive. No wonder it is bad". Yet... Pikeman in V are quite good. They are very cheap for its power, and it would still be a good value at 100 - 110 Production. So the point of comparison was biased.
When we compare with Man-at-Arms (a very good unit), the units is as strong (45 CS) but with no Strategic resources. It just cost 20 Production more. Yet, if it costed as much (160 Production), then the Man-at-Arms would have nothing more than a different Promotion table that doesn't enjoy +10CS against Cavalry for an additional 20 Iron cost.
By logic, the Pikeman should be at 40 CS (-5) but costing only 130 Production (-50). In practice, the unit wouldn't be a counter to Cavalry units such as Knight which has 50 CS (well, that Pikeman would be cheaper and easy to swarm with). That is why the Pikeman is at an odd place. Maybe, I should talk about Promotion table inequalities.
Meanwhile, the AT Crew is quite cheap for its power.
Siege class units
The Siege class units in Civilization VI use "Bombard" damage, in order to hit effectively Walls.
In Civilization V, Siege units has the following abilities:
- Bonus vs Cities (+200%), roughly +27 CS.
- Replaced in VI with Wall mechanic, and higher base CS but suffering from -17 CS against land units (roughly -50%).
- I would mess the comparison, as there is a 10 CS gap in one end. Should I compare with a 5 CS advantage toward VI?
- No Defensive Bonus (such as Woods, Hills or Fortifications).
- Must Set Up to Ranged Attack
- Replaced in VI with "can attack with full Movement", then overpatched to "can attack if it has more than its base Movement" (due to being bugged with Great General and Cyrus).
- Limited Visibility Ranged: -1
| Unit | Era | Production | Strategic | Melee | Ranged | Range | Move | Other Abilities |
| Catapult (V) Siege | Early classical Mathematics | 75 | - | 22 | 25 | 2 | 2 | |
| Catapult (VI) Siege | Late classical Engineering | 120 | - | 25 | 35 | 2 | 2 | |
| Trebuchet (V) Siege | Late medieval Physics | 120 | - | 35 | 39 | 2 | 2 | |
| Trebuchet (VI) Siege | Late medieval Military Engineering | 200 (+67%) | - | 35 (=) | 45 (+1*) | 2 | 2 | |
| Cannon (V) Siege | Late renaissance Chemistry | 185 | - | 39 | 48 | 2 | 2 | |
| Bombard (VI) Siege | Late renaissance Metal Casting | 280 (+51%) | Niter (!) | 45 (+6) | 55 (+2*) | 2 | 2 | |
| Artillery (V) Siege | Late industrial Dynamite | 320 | - | 49 | 56 | 3 | 2 | Indirect Fire |
| Artillery (VI) Siege | Early modern Steel | 430 | Oil (!) | 60 | 80 | 2 (-1) | 2 | |
| Rocket Artillery (V) Siege | Late atomic Rocketry | 425 | Aluminium | 68 | 75 | 3 | 2 | Indirect Fire No Setup |
| Rocket Artillery (VI) Siege | Early information Guidance Systems | 680 | Oil (!) | 70 | 100 | 3 | 3 | Sight of 3 |
Siege units are interesting. They follow the +50% Production cost. Yet, they have no policy increasing Siege units production. Why? Please, Firaxis, add policy cards that increase by 50% the production cost of Siege, Support and Recon units. Or maybe makes them cheaper? The Trebuchet might a little too much costly, but not by much.
The units follows the curve really well. As Siege units has +27 CS against cities in VI, while they have -17 CS against land unit in V, I have to compare with a 5 bonus for Ranged Strength for VI. If V has 20 (47 vs Cities), and VI has 25 (42 vs Cities), therefore the average would be the same, with +5/-5 in VI.
But I guess they find out the cities are way sturdier in VI, because Artillery and Rocket Artillery has +10 CS bonus, which tie V to deal as much damage against cities, but it would have +10 CS against everything else. Probably to deal with Urban Walls.
Conclusion
It astonished me to find out that both games are very close in the power they gave to the units. Yet, the few oddities can be actual non solved problematic in VI.
They made the units to cost 50% more, but introduced policies that increase Production by 50%. Yet, Recon and Siege units don't have those policy cards while being as costly as the other units.
Early units don't follow the +50% cost rule. The Warrior has the same cost, but is made weaker by 5 CS. All Ancient units are kind of in this situation... except the Archer. Not only it follows the higher production rule exactly, but it is also a little stronger that its counterpart. Therefore the Archer is dominating the Ancient era (yeah! I proved that Archer are more potent in VI than V!).
Civilization V also had units that Civilization VI doesn't have. For example: the Composite Bowman. Maybe one the reasons the Archer is that strong is because a "normal power" Archer couldn't compete with the Horseman and Swordsman units. They also have the Bazooka, which give the Ranged units a representative in the Information era, something we don't have in VI. Maybe the game should have those units to fill some gaps.
Some units are only half an era apart, like the Longswordsman vs Musketman, the Great War Infantry vs Infantry, or the Landship vs Tank. I can understand why for Longswordsman vs Musketman, as it is the change to Gunpowder units which don't need Strategic Resources. But for the other two, I think it is nice flavor-wise (distinction between WWI and WWII), but doesn't bring as much gameplay-wise.
Back the Ancient era problem: I believe most of units attacking in Melee in the Ancient era are made bad because the Barbarian starts with them and use them. If the Spearman was made stronger, our starting Warrior couldn't beat them. I believe that what was once the +10 CS vs Anticavalry on the Melee Class was just a tool to give the players a way to deal with Barbarian Outpost which end up having the whole Anticavalry class being bad. It was later reduced to +5 CS.
As the Slinger is the rubbish Ranged unit that can upgrade to the Archer in the Ancient era, should the Warrior be or have a rubbish Melee unit that can upgrade from/into in the Ancient era as well? Same thing for the Spearman?
- Melee
- Brute (start): 20 CS for 40 Production (→160 Gold)
- Warrior (Bronze Working?): 28 CS for 75 Production (→ 300 Gold)
- Ranged
- Slinger (start): 5/15 CS (=), 1 Range (=) for 35 Production (=) (140 Gold)
- Archer (Archery): 15/25 CS (=), 2 Range (=) for 75 Production (+15) (240 → 300 Gold).
- Anticavalry
- Hunter (start): 20 CS for 40 Production (160 Gold)
- Barbarian Outpost would be guarded by Hunters until someone unlock Bronze Working, making them more manageable.
- Spearman (Bronze Working): 28 CS (+3) for 75 Production (+10) (260 → 300 Gold)
- Hunter (start): 20 CS for 40 Production (160 Gold)
- Heavy Cavalry
- Heavy Chariot (Wheel): 28 CS (=) for 75 Production (+10) (260 → 300 Gold).
- Maybe, in order to give it utility, it should have 3 Movement but requires 5 or 10 Horses
- Heavy Chariot (Wheel): 28 CS (=) for 75 Production (+10) (260 → 300 Gold).
The Horseman is another unit that doesn't follow the formula, as it costs almost the same yet being even more powerful. It shows in the game as well. The game designers even had to create Barbarian Horseman to circumvent the problem! Yet, in V, the Horseman has roughly the same power.
What should be done? Nothing? Increase its cost to ~120? Reduce its power to ~30? Or something in between like ~33 CS and ~100 Production?
Lastly, the late era units are diverging quite far from Civilization V's philosophy. In both games, the units have a better Power over Price ratio than the previous eras. The divergence comes from how they did it: in V the Price is almost the same and the Power is somewhat increased. In VI, the ratio is kept the same but both Power and Price are increased, the Power more than the Price.
Yet, even by taking the new philosophy in account, late-game units are quite a mess. The most notable is the Tank, which is as powerful as the Mechanized Infantry, both consuming Oil, yet the Tank is available earlier and is cheaper. Perhaps they took inspiration from Civilization V's Tank (unlocked later), instead of the Landship?
Arguably, some units distance themselves from that ratio: the AT-Crew is perhaps too cheap for its power, while the Modern Armor is perhaps too strong for its price.
And you?
Do you think it is relevant to look back in Civilization V to know where Civilization VI is going? Is there something that V have that you want in VI, or instead wouldn't want at all?
It took too much time to write this, and I didn't even talk about Naval and Air units, and don't talk about Promotion table which is also worth a discussion!
Last edited:
Okay it does sometimes take hundreds of years to build a unit. No one really wants the infinite unit spam of Civ5, so my proposal is hard caps on military size. Or at least heavy maintenance once you get to a certain point. Otherwise units should be able to be built faster. 
